The Trump administration must be ready to apply pressure to Benjamin Netanyahu if it wants to save its peace plan.
Any semblance of a ceasefire in Gaza died this week with Israel’s brief resumption of total war against Hamas on October 28. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unilaterally declared a resumption of the ceasefire the next day, the reality is clear: Any agreement that allows one party to systematically violate its terms at will only constitutes meaningless words on paper. Without sustained US pressure, that dynamic will only worsen.
Israeli violations before this week’s strikes already raised serious concerns regarding the ceasefire’s sustainability. Since it began on October 10, Israel has continued to limit humanitarian aid flows into Gaza—a core component of the agreement with Hamas to end the fighting. It has regularly struck the Strip, citing unconfirmed reports of Hamas attacks on its forces, killing well over 100 people while injuring hundreds more. It refuses to open additional crossings that would further bolster aid flows for starving and impoverished Palestinian civilians.
To be clear, any actor violating the ceasefire should be held accountable for their actions. That includes Hamas, which is certainly working to regain its strength and will challenge Israel where it can. While many reports of attacks on Israeli forces are either exaggerated or incorrect, in no small part due to the likelihood that some of its fighters remain disconnected from command channels, it also signed a deal that it must honor.
Still, power asymmetry and US influence over Israel matter in this context, especially considering the latter has broken previous ceasefires unilaterally. That Israel’s new strikes on October 28 killed over 100 more people—including 46 children—puts to rest any idea that a real ceasefire exists in Gaza today. Rather, the same rules that have provided exceptional leniency to Israel for decades reign supreme. As such, the deal with Hamas resembles the Israel-Hezbollah “ceasefire” in Lebanon, with its ongoing bombings and illegal occupation of sovereign Lebanese territory.
In that context, Israel is imposing its will on a new, reformist Lebanese government with the full backing of Washington. The results speak for themselves: noble efforts to disarm Hezbollah are hitting roadblocks because Israel’s ongoing presence only bolsters the group’s raison d’etre—namely that of resisting Israeli occupation.
Like Hamas, Hezbollah will take advantage of that dynamic to retain its arms and power. Meanwhile, helpless Lebanese and Syrian refugees are trapped in the middle, likely viewed as another pressure point on Beirut by Israeli and American leaders as opposed to civilians deserving of dignity and security, not the worst of the realpolitik dictating the supposed “New Middle East.”
That future appears set for Gaza as well, but under worse, near-apocalyptic conditions for Palestinian civilians in the Strip. Nearly all are displaced, with most public infrastructure decimated. Famine conditions persist amid widespread food insecurity and child malnutrition. Ongoing intra-Palestinian fighting between Hamas and Israel-backed militias threatens civilians on a daily basis.
Under the so-called ceasefire and US President Donald Trump’s broader 20-point peace plan, Israel still controls roughly 53 percent of Gaza, with vague language dictating a future withdrawal closer to 8 percent—called a “buffer zone” surrounding Gaza’s disputed border with Israel—upon Hamas disarming. Israeli and US officials openly talk of only rebuilding Israel-controlled areas in a clear rebrand of the plan to move Palestinians to previous so-called “humanitarian zones” that many likened to concentration camps.
Each of these concerning developments suggests that the rest of Trump’s 20-point plan is empty words on paper. Simply put, neither Hamas nor Israel trusts the other or appears interested in fully implementing this plan’s already vague points. Instead, both appear interested in carving out as much leverage as possible as Washington leans back into bad habits—namely, unconditional support for Israel.
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside Trump, claimed this week that Israel has the right to strike targets in Gaza, viewing such actions as valid under the ceasefire’s details. Such claims contradict the fundamental definition underlying the term and these agreements. A unilateral ceasefire is no ceasefire at all.
That such high-ranking US officials would make such claims defies logic, especially considering the expansive political capital invested on the part of the Trump administration to achieve the would-be ceasefire. If there is one core trait to understand about the US president, it is that he hates losing, let alone any semblance of losing. Allowing Netanyahu to trash a supposed generational peace framework goes against those widely understood characteristics, even when considering the pro-Israel bona fides undergirding Trump’s administration more broadly.
Yet, whether Trump applies more pressure on Israel remains to be seen. To be sure, Washington has and did force the Israeli government to sign on to its ceasefire and broader peace plan and has repeatedly applied pressure on Netanyahu in effective ways. However, the Trump administration still caters to Israeli interests overall and should not be given a pass on its active, direct role in ravaging Gaza.
Ultimately, for a true ceasefire to succeed, the Trump administration will need to apply constant pressure on Netanyahu to see it through. That effort includes holding all parties accountable for violating the ceasefire, especially as a guarantor of the agreement. The ceasefire and any shot at a broader peace will fail if Washington falls back on its worst impulses, subsequently allowing Israel to act on its own.
For Palestinians in Gaza facing a genocide, that outcome is a death sentence. Only a genuine ceasefire can end that suffering and, hopefully, pave the way for reconstruction and rehabilitation. Anything short of that is a failure on the part of a US administration that has the capacity to maintain pressure and play a truly constructive role.
About the Author: Alexander Langlois
Alexander Langlois is a contributing fellow for Defense Priorities. Langlois holds a Master of Arts degree in International Affairs from American University, where he specialized in global governance, politics, and security. He is a foreign policy analyst and writer, with publications in various outlets, including The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Sada, the Atlantic Council’s MENASource, the Lowy Institute, the Gulf International Forum, The New Arab, The Nation, Inkstick, and The National Interest.
Image: ImageBank4u / Shutterstock.com.
